“Injecting heroin is unlawful dangerous act sufficient for manslaughter conviction”
Cato and the victim were drug users who injected each other with heroin. The victim died from the injection administered by Cato. Cato was charged with manslaughter and administering a noxious substance.
Whether injecting someone with heroin constituted an unlawful and dangerous act sufficient to establish unlawful act manslaughter when the victim consented to the injection.
The Court of Appeal upheld Cato's conviction for manslaughter. The injection of heroin was both unlawful and dangerous, regardless of the victim's consent.
This case clarifies that consent is no defense to unlawful act manslaughter and establishes important precedent for drug-related deaths. It's crucial for understanding the boundaries of consent in criminal law and the application of manslaughter principles to modern social problems.
You're reading the free summary of R v Cato. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.